“mini-experiments”

“mini-experiments”
Order Description
Choose one of the “mini-experiments” listed below, and do the experiment for a few days. Then, write about your experience, the results, and incorporate concepts from your readings. I have attached the instructions.
On the Power of Positive Thinking: The
Benefits of Being Optimistic
Michael F. Scheier and Charles S. Carver
If believing in something can
make it so, then there really would
be power in positive thinking. From
the little train in the children’s tale
who said, “I think I can,” to popular
writers such as Norman Cousins and
Norman Vincent Peale, to wise
grandmothers everywhere—many
people have espoused the benefits ot
positive thinking. But are these benefits
real? Do people who think positively
really fare better when facing
challenge or adversity? Do they recover
from illness more readily? If
so, how and why do these things
happen?
We and a number of other psychologists
who are interested in issues
surrounding stress, coping, and
health have for several years focused
our research attention on questions
such as these. The primary purpose
of this brief review is to provide a
taste of the research conducted on
this topic. We first document that
positive thinking can be beneficial.
We then consider why an optimistic
orientation to life might confer benefits.
After considering how individual
differences in optimism might
arise, we take up the question of
whether optimism is always good
and pessimism always bad. We
close by discussing the similarities
between our own approach and
other related approaches.
Michael F. Scheier is Professor of
Psychology at Carnegie Mellon
University. Charles S. Carver is
Professor of Psychology at the
University of Miami. Address
correspondence to Michael F.
Scheier, Department of Psychology,
Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213; e-mail:
msOa(a)andrew.cmu.edu.
CHARACTERIZING POSITIVE
THINKING
Psychologists have approached
the notion of positive thinking from a
variety of perspectives. Common to
most views, though, is the idea that
positive thinking in some way involves
holding positive expectancies
for one’s future. Such expectancies
are thought to have built-in implications
for behavior. That is, the actions
that people take are thought to
be greatly influenced by their expectations
about the likely consequences
of those actions. People
who see desired outcomes as attainable
continue to strive for those outcomes,
even when progress is slow
or difficult. When outcomes seem
sufficiently unattainable, people
withdraw their effort and disengage
themselves from their goals. Thus,
people’s expectancies provide a basis
for engaging in one of two very
different classes of behavior: continued
striving versus giving up.
People can hold expectancies at
many levels of generality. Some
theoretical views focus on expectancies
that pertain to particular situations,
or even to particular actions.’
Such an approach allows for considerable
variation in the positivity of
one’s thinking from one context to
the next. Thus, a person who is quite
optimistic about recovering successfully
from a car accident may be far
less optimistic about landing the big
promotion that is up for grabs at
work.
Our own research on positive and
negative thinking began with a focus
on situation-specific expectancies,
but over the years we began to consider
expectancies that are more
general and diffuse. We believe that
generalized expectancies constitute
an important dimension of personality,
that they are relatively stable
across time and context. We refer to
this dimension as optimism and consirue
it in terms of the belief that
good, as opposed to bad, things will
generally occur in one’s life. We (ocus
on this dimension for the rest of
this article.
MEASURING OPTIMISM
We measure individual differences
in optimism with the Life Orientation
Test, or LOT.^ The LOT
consists of a series of items that assess
the person’s expectations regarding
fhe favorability of future outcomes
(e.g., “i hardly ever expect
things to go my way,” “In uncertain
times, 1 usually expect the best”).
LOT scores correlate positively with
measures of internal control and
self-esteem, correlate negatively
with measures of depression anci
hopelessness, and arc relatively unrelated
to measures of social desirability.*^
If dispositional optimism is in fact
a personality characteristic, it should
be relatively stable across time. We
have reported a test-retest correlation
of .79 across a 4-week period.”^
More recently, Karen Matthews has
found a correlation of .69 between
LOT scores assessed 3 years apart in
a sample of 460 healthy, middleaged
women. Indeed, LOT scores
seem to remain relatively stable
even in the face of catastrophes. For
example, Schulz, Tompkins, and
Rau’ tracked LOT scores in a group
of stroke patients and their primary
caregivers across a 6-month period.
Although the LOT scores of both the
patients and the support persons
dropped over time {significantly so
for the latter), the absolute magnitude
of the drop was exceedingly
small (less than 1 point on a 32-poini
scale). Thus, optimism as measured
Published byCambridj^e Univprsity Prt
by the LOT seems to be a relatively
enduring characteristic that changes
little with the vagaries of life.
Factor analyses of the LOT routinely
yield two separate factors,*^”’
comprised of positively worded (optimistic)
items and negatively
worded (pessimistic) items, respectively.
Identification of two factors
raises the question of whether it is
better to view optimism and pessimism
as opposite poles of a single
dimension or as constituting two
separate but correlated dimensions.’^
Though this is an interesting question,
we have thus far taken the
former view.
PSYCHOLOGICAL
WELL-BEING
A growing number of studies
have examined the effects of dispositional
optimism on psychological
well-being.”‘ These studies have produced
a remarkably consistent pattern
of findings: Optimists routinely
maintain higher levels of subjective
well-being during times of stress
than do people who are less optimistic.
Let us briefly describe two illustrative
cases.
One study’^ examined the development
of postpartum depression in
a group of women having their first
children. Women in this study completed
the LOT and a standard measure
of depression in the third trimester
of pregnancy. They
completed the same depression
measure again 3 weeks postpartum.
Initial optimism was inversely associated
with depression 3 weeks postpartum,
even when the initial level
of depression was controlled statistically.
In other words, optimism predicted
changes in depression over
time. Optimistic women were less
iikeiy to become depressed following
childbirth.
Conceptually simitar findings
have recently been reported in a
study of undergraduate students’ adjustment
to their first semester of college/
A variety of factors were assessed
when the students first arrived
on campus, including dispositional
optimism. Several measures of psychological
well-being were obtained
3 months later. Optimism had
a substantial effect on future psychological
well-being: Higher levels of
optimism upon entering college
were associated with lower distress
levels 3 months later. Notably, the
effects of optimism in this study were
distinct from those of the other personality
factors measured, including
self-esteem, locus of control, and
desire for control. Thus, an optimistic
orientation to iife seemed to provide
a benefit over and above that
provided by these other personality
characteristics.
PHYSICAL WELL-BEING
If the effects of optimism were
limited to making people feel better,
perhaps such findings would not be
very surprising. The effects of optimism
seem to go beyond this, however.
There is at least some evidence
that optimism also confers benefits
on physical well-being.
Consider, for example, a study
conducted on a group of men undergoing
coronary artery bypass graft
surgery.^ Each patient was interviewed
on the day prior to surgery, 6
to H days postsurgery, and again 6
months later. Optimism was assessed
on the day prior to surgery by
the LOT. A variety of medical and
recovery variables were measured at
several times, beginning before surgery
and continuing through surgery
and several months thereafter.
The data showed a number of effects
for dispositional optimism.
One notable finding concerns reactions
to the surgery itself. Optimism
was negatively related to physiological
changes reflected in the patient’s
electrocardiogram and to the
release of certain kinds of enzymes
into the bloodstream. Both of these
changes are widely taken as markers
for myocardial infarction. The data
thus suggest that optimists were less
likely than pessimists to suffer heart
attack during surgery.
Optimism was also a significant
predictor of the rate of recovery during
the immediate postoperative period.
Optimists were faster to
achieve selected behavioral milestones
of recovery (e.g., sitting up in
bed, walking around the room), and
they were rated by medical staff as
showing better physical recovery.
The advantages of an optimistic
orientation were also apparent at the
6-month follow-up. Optimistic patients
were more likely than pessimistic
patients to have resumed vigorous
physical exercise and to have
returned to work full-time. Moreover,
optimists returned to their activities
more quickly than did pessimists.
In sum, optimists were able to
normalize their lifestyles more fully
and more quickly than were pessimists.
It is important to note that all
of the findings just described were
independent of the person’s medical
status at the outset of the study.
Thus, it was not the case that optimists
did better simply because they
were less sick at the time of surgery.
HOW DOES OPTIMISM
HELP?
If an understanding can be gained
of why optimists do better than pessimists,
then perhaps psychologists
can begin to devise ways to help
pessimists do better. One promising
line of inquiry concerns differences
between optimists and pessimists in
how they cope with stress. Research
from a variety of sources is beginning
to suggest that optimists cope in
more adaptive ways than do pessimists.^
Optimists are more likely
than pessimists to take direct action
to solve their problems, are more
planfu! in dealing with the adversity
lj)pvrighl ,c) Amcruan Psvchologtcal S’x iplv
they confront, and are more focused
in their coping efforts. Optimists are
more likely to accept the reality of
the stressful situations they encounter,
and they also seem intent on
growing personally from negative
experiences and trying to make the
best of bad situations. In contrast to
these positive coping reactions, pessimists
are more likely than optimists
to react to stressful events by trying
to deny that they exist or by trying to
avoid dealing with problems. Pessimists
are also more likely to quit trying
when difficulties arise.
We now know that these coping
differences are at least partly responsible
for the differences in distress
that optimists and pessimists experience
in times of stress. When Aspinwall
and Taylor” studied adjustment
to college life, they collected information
about the coping tactics the
students were using to help themselves
adjust to college, as well as
measuring their optimism and eventual
adjustment. Optimists were
more likely than pessimists to rely on
active coping techniques and less
likely to engage in avoidance. These
two general coping orientations
were both related to later adjustment,
in opposite directions. Avoidance
coping was associated with
poorer adjustment, whereas active
coping was associated with better
adjustment. Further analysis revealed
that these two coping tendencies
mediated the link between optimism
and adjustment. Thus,
optimists did better than pessimists
at least partly because optimists used
more effective ways of coping with
problems.
A similar conclusion is suggested
by a study of breast cancer patients
that we and our colleagues recently
completed. The women in this study
reported on their distress and coping
reactions before surgery, 10 days after
surgery, and at 3-month,
6-month, and 12-month follow-ups.
Throughout this period, optimism
was associated with a coping pattern
that Involved accepting the reality of
the situation, along with efforts to
make the best of it. Optimism was
inversely associated with attempts to
act as though the problem was not
real and with the tendency to give
up on the life goals that were being
threatened by the diagnosis of cancer.
Further analyses suggested that
these differences in coping served as
paths by which the optimistic
women remained less vulnerable to
distress than the pessimistic women
throughout the year.
ANTECEDENTS OF OPTIMISM
Where does optimism come
from? Why do some people have it
and others not? At present, not much
is known about the origins of individual
differences on this dimension.
The determinants must necessarily
fall in two broad categories,
however: nature and nurture.
On the nature side, the available
evidence suggests that individual
differences in optimism-pessimism
may be partly Inherited. A translated
version of the LOT was given to a
sample of more than 500 same-sex
pairs of middle-aged Swedish twins,
and the heritability of optimism and
pessimism was estimated to be
about 25% using several different estimation
procedures.’^ Thus, at least
part of the variation in optimism and
pessimism in the general population
seems due to genetic infiuence.
On the environmental side, less is
known, it is certainly reasonable to
argue that optimism and pessimism
are partly learned from prior experiences
with success and failure. To
the extent that one has been successful
in the past, one should expect
success in the future. Analogously,
prior failure might breed the expectation
of future failure. Children
might also acquire a sense of optimism
(or pessimism} from their parents,
for example, through modeling.
That is, parents who meet
difficulties with positive expectations
and who use adaptive coping
strategies are explicitly or implicitly
modeling those qualities for their
children. Pessimistic parents also
provide models for their children, although
the qualities modeled are
very different. Thus, children might
become optimistic or pessimistic by
thinking and acting in ways their
parents do.
Parents might also influence children
more directly by instructing
them In problem solving. Parents
who teach adaptive coping skills
will produce children who are better
problem solvers than children of
parents who do not. To the extent
that acquiring adaptive coping skills
leads to coping success, the basis for
an optimistic orientation is provided.
We have recently begun a
program of research designed to examine
how coping strategies are
transmitted from parent to child,
with particular emphasis on the
manner in which parental characteristics
affect the kinds of coping strategies
that are taught.
IS OPTIMISM ALWAYS
GOOD? IS PESSIMISM
ALWAYS BAD?
Implicit in our discussion thus far
is the view that optimism is good for
people. Is this always true? There are
at least two ways in which an optimistic
orientation might lead to
poorer outcomes. First, it may be
possible to be too optimistic, or to
be optimistic in unproductive ways.
For example, unbridled optimism
may cause people to sit and wait for
good things to happen, thereby decreasing
the chance of success. We
have seen no evidence of such a tendency
among people defined as optimistic
on the basis of the LOT,
however. Instead, optimistic people
seem to view positive outcomes as
partially contingent on their continued
effort.
Published by Cambridge University
Second, optimism might also
prove detrimental in situations that
are not amenable to constructive action.
Optimists are prone to face
problems with efforts to resolve
them, but perhaps this head-on approach
is maladaptive in situations
that are uncontrollable or that involve
major loss or a violation of
one’s world view. Data on this
question are lacking, yet it is worth
noting that the coping arsenal of optimists
is not limited to the problemfocused
domain. Optimists also use
a host of emotion-focused coping responses,
including tendencies to accept
the reality of the situation, to
put the situation in the best possible
light, and to grow personally from
their hardships. Given these coping
options, optimists may prove to have
a coping advantage even in the most
distressing situations.
What about the reverse question?
Can pessimism ever work in one’s
favor? Cantor and Norem^” recently
coined the term defensive pessimism
to reflect a coping style in which
people expect outcomes that are
more negative than their prior reward
histories in a given domain
would suggest. Defensive pessimism
may be useful because it helps to
buffer the person against future failure,
should failure occur. In addition,
defensive pessimism may help
the person perform better because
the worry over anticipated failure
prompts remedial action in preparation
for the event.
Defensive pessimism does seem
to work. That is, the performance of
defensive pessimists tends to be better
than the performance of real pessimists,
whose negative expectations
are anchored in prior failure. On the
other hand, defensive pessimism
never works better than optimism.
Moreover, this style apparently has
some hidden costs: People who use
defensive pessimism in the short run
report more psychological symptoms
and a lower quality of life in
the long run than do optimists.^”
Such findings call into serious question
the adaptive value of defensive
pessimism.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER
APPROACHES
The concept of optimism, as discussed
here, does not stand apart
from the rest of personality psychology.
There are easily noted family
resemblances to several other personality
constructs and approaches
that have arisen in response to the
same questions that prompted our
line of theorizing. Two well-known
examples are attributional style^’
and self-efficacy.’ It may be useful
to briefly note some similarities and
differences between our conceptualization
and these other approaches.
Attributional Style
Work on attributionai style derives
from the cognitive model’^ that
was proposed to account for the
phenomenon of learned helplessness’^
in humans. In this model,
people’s causal explanations for past
events influence their expectations
for controlling future events. The explanations
thus influence subsequent
feelings and behavior. As the
attributional theory developed, it
evolved toward a consideration of
individual differences and began to
focus on the possibility that an individual
may have a stable tendency
toward using one or another type of
attribution. A tendency to attribute
negative outcomes to causes that are
stable, global, and internal has
come to be known as pessimistic. A
tendency to attribute negative events
to causes that are unstable, specific,
and external has come to be known
as optimistic.
There is a clear conceptual link
between this theory and the approach
that we have taken. Both
theories rely on the assumption that
the consequences of optimism versus
pessimism derive from differences
in people’s expectancies (at
least in part). This assumption has
been focal in our theory, and it is
also important—albeit less focal—-in
the attributional approach. Moreover,
despite differences in the types
of measures used to assess optimism
and attributiona! style, research findings
relating attributional style to
psychological and physical wellbeing
have tended to parallel findings
obtained for dispositional optimism.'”*
Thus, the data converge on
the conclusion that optimism is beneficial
for mental and physical functioning.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy expectancies are
people’s expectations of being either
able or unable to execute desired
behaviors successfully. Although
there are obvious similarities between
self-efficacy and optimismpessimism,
there are also two salient
differences. One difference involves
the extent to which the sense of personal
agency is seen as the critical
variable underlying behavior. Our
approach to dispositional optimism
intentionally deemphasizes the role
of personal efficacy. Statements on
self-efficacy make personal agency
paramount.’
The second difference concerns
the breadth of the expectancy on
which the theory focuses. Efficacy
theory holds that people’s behavior
is best predicted by focalized, domain-
specific (or even act-specific)
expectancies. Dispositional optimism,
in contrast, is thought to be a
very generalized tendency that has
an infiuence in a wide variety of settings.
Interestingly, relevant research
® suggests that both types of
expectancies (specific and general)
are useful in predicting behavior.
CONCLUDING COMMENT
Our purpose in writing this article
(perhaps in line with its subject mat-
Copyright © 1993 American Psychological Socieiy
ter) was to put a positive foot forward
in presenting work on the benefits
of optimism. In so doing, we
may have created a false sense that
the important questions about positive
thinking have all been answered.
Such is not the case. Understanding
of the nature and effects of
optimism is still in its infancy, and
there is much more to learn. For example,
although the effects of optimism
seem attributable in part to differences
in the ways optimists and
pessimists cope with stress, this cannot
be the complete answer. It is impossible
to account fully for differences
between optimists and
pessimists on the basis of this factor
alone.
Similarly, more work is needed to
tease apart the effects of optimism
from the effects of related variables.
As noted earlier, a number of personality
dimensions bear a conceptual
resemblance to optimismpessimism.
Some of these
dimensions, such as personal coherence,
hardiness, and learned resourcefulness,
have appeared in the
literature only recently. Other dimensions,
such as neuroticism, selfesteem,
and self-mastery, have J
longer scientific past. Given the existence
of these related constructs, it
is reasonable to ask whether their effects
are distinguishable. This question
cannot be resolved easily on the
basis of one or two studies alone. An
answer must await the gradual accumulation
of evidence from many
studies using different methodologies
and assessing different outcomes.
There does seem to be a power to
positive thinking. It surely is not as
simple and direct a process as believing
in something making it so.
But believing that the future holds
good things in store clearly has an
effect on the way people relate to
many aspects of life.
Acknowledgments—Preparation of this
article was facilitated by National Science
Foundation Grants BNS-9010425
and BNS-9011653, by National Institutes
of Health Grant 1 R01 HL44432-01 A l ,
and by American Cancer Society Grant
PBR-56-
Notes
1 A. Bandurti, 5oo’a/ FuuiKhitiiiiT, nt Ihoughl
<3w/ Action: A Socuil (.ognilhv Jhvory (Prentirp-
Hall, Lnglewocd Ciifls, \], 1486).
2 M.F. Scheier and C h. Carver, CJptiniism.
(Oping, and hLviltlr Assessment and implications oi
generalised oulcome exprctancics, I Ivdlth P.svt/to/
o.ey, 4, 219-247 1198^1
i. K. Sfiiuiz, C.A Tompkins. am! M.T Rau, A
longiludmal studv or the psvihosoual impa( t oi”
stroke on primary sjfiport persons. l\y< iio!iig\ ,i,’n/
Aiiiriii, ‘-i, 1 (1 141 (19881
4. C, N. Marshall. C.B VVoriman, i.W. Kiisulav
L K. Hervi]^, and R.R. Vickei’-, |r., Uistmguisliing
uplimism triim pessimism- Relations to fundamental
dimensions ol niond and personalily, journdl of Pvr-
,sona/;fy and Soci.it Psvciio/n^v, hJ, 10fi7 11)74
(1992).
S. Sci5 M.F. Scheier and C.S. Carver, Lfft’Cts iif
optimism on psvchological and physical well-being:
Theoretical overview and empirical update, Cognitivv
Therapy and Research. 16, 201-228 (l’>92}.
6 C.S. Carver and j.G. CJaines, Optimism, pessimism,
and postpartum depression. Cognitive Therapy
and Research. 11, 449-462 (1987).
7. L.G. Aspinwiill and S.L. Tavlor, Modelinf;
cognitive adaptation: A longitudinal invLStigation ot
the impact o( individual differences and coping on
college adjustment and iJerformance, journal of I’vr
sonaiitv jnd Socul S’wchoky^v (in pressl.
8. iM.I. ScheicT, K.A Matthews, I.L Owens,
G.j. Magovern, Sr., R. LeTebvre, R.C. Abbott, and
C.S. Carver, Uispositionai optimism and recoverv
trom coronnry artery bypass surgery: The beneficial
effects of optimism on physical and psychological
well-being, journ<\t o! Pvr-zonalitv and Social Piy-
(hology. S7, 1024-UHi) (19891.
9. R. Plomm, M T. Scheier, C.S. 13frgeman,
N.I. Pederst’n, | R. Nesselroade, and Ci.E. Mt-
Clearn, Optimism, pessimism and mental health’ A
twin/adoption analysis, l’vr-,oniili!v and IndwidujI
DiiiervncV’ (in press).
to. N. Cantor an(i ] K \orem. Defensive pessimism
and stress and coping, .Social Cogn/r/on, 7,
92- 112 (19891
11. [ .Y. Abramson, M.E P. Seligmaii, and \.D
Teasdaie, Learned hciplessness in humans. Critique
and reformulation, journal of Abnormal P-^vi.hology,
H7, 49 74 (1978).
12 M.E.I’ Seligman, /feip/es^or’.v On Uepress.’
on, nevc/opme/K, ,if)d Oeat^i (freeman, S.m Franc
is( o. 19751.
!3 tor d review, sec (” Peterson and I .M
Bossio, ihwith and Optimism Svw Rv,i\ir( h an ihc
Rvldtion’.hip Between Pcnivc Jhmking and !’hv>i
‘.dl We/Z-Being (Free Press, \ev\ York, 1991).
Recommended Reading
Siheier, M [ , and C.irvef. C S. (1992). t;fti\ts
of optimism (in psychological and physiial wellbeing:
Theoretiial overview and empirical iipdaie.
{ (i^nitivv Iherdpy .iriij Resvamh, Ih, 201- 228.
Seligman. M.K.P i199!l Learned Oplimi’^ni
iKnopt. Xew York).
Vaylor, S.L. (1989) Po’-iUve J//U.MOIJV (..re,ilive
.Se.'(-D(‘cept;nn and the Hvalthv Mind (Basic Books,
\ew York).
Published l>y Cambridge University Press